This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
"there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon" I think this sentence is misleading, This statement should be changed to something along the lines of "There is no convincing evidence of psychokinesis known to the present day scientific community"...To claim with absolute certainty that no convincing evidence exists at all would require omniscience of all the experiences of everyone on earth, thus we should be clear that real evidence may exist outside the current observations made by the scientific community...I myself am a psychokinetic, I can move small objects and have even demonstrated the power to move things in a vacuum...After three years of experimentation with this ability I can say with absolute certainty that I have convincing evidence of psychokinesis, There are many examples of psychokinesis performed on youtube, not just psi wheel demonstrations, but also much heavier objects, like rocks and cups, as well as other documented historical and contemporary accounts of psychokinesis, or psycho kinesis related phenomenon...I don't offer this information as proof, merely as a reminder to be more open minded about psychokinesis. Here are some psychokinesis demonstrations on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhOElTrSRcQ) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpG4CtWc9t0) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNJkjri5qo)(<--This is a good one, dice manipulation) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3c5G0qBZY) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJxv0QNOUA) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkQvHHFfVI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 ( talk) 07:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you define evidence? I suspect you have defined evidence as only scientific evidence, this is a mistake, people are capable of knowing unscientifically verifiable(To the scientific community) claims, Like knowledge of your own consciousness... I know that infact you DO speculate!!, You have not tested scientifically, nor in any other regard the KNOWLEDGE state of everybody over the entire course of human history!!!! and apparently you have not even checked the sources of evidence I gave...You probably ignore them as fakes, well the obvious question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW that they're fakes??? Don't make presumptions so easily, you will stymied your own intellectual honesty...Please be more weary of what you truely know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 ( talk) 06:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by page mover) Sky Warrior 17:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – I’m fairly certain that “telekinesis”, not “psychokinesis”, is the term in common usage. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 04:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This Maier, Markus A.; Dechamps, Moritz C. (30 June 2018). "Observer Effects on Quantum Randomness: Testing Micro-Psychokinetic Effects of Smokers on Addiction-Related Stimuli". Journal of Scientific Exploration. 32 (2): 265–297. doi: 10.31275/2018.1250. could be placed somewhere without breaking the balance of neutrality?-- Hienafant ( talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the conclusion: "From the analysis of the video tapes and high speed photographs of 25 successful experiments in breaking through spacial barriers by a young subject with paranormal abilities, we have proved the existence of one type of paranormal ability - the ability to pass through spacial barriers"
I am convinced. Not only from this cited study, but also based on own macro-psychokinesis experiments, wherein I have clearly observed psychokinesis on multiple occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 ( talk) 03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The article states that there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis exists. Who is to decide what is convincing?. Here is a link to an experiment archived the CIA, performed by the aerospace medicine engineering institute, wherein the experimenters claim to have proven a psychokinetic ability. I find it convincing. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000300390001-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.119.199 ( talk) 10:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I just discovered how to reply...I did read it, I was however unsure of the authorship, I initially thought it was the CIA, but later found that it was the aerospace medicine engineering institute of some country. This is not the only published work which shows the existence of psychokinesis and other mind-matter interaction phenomenon. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm A huge amount of evidence exists, and furthermore, many people are convinced on the basis of that evidence.Including many parapsychologists. To claim otherwise is delusional. Thus, the phrasing should be changed from "There is no convincing evidence" to something more neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 ( talk) 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 08:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – This seems to be the more common name. See how many G-hits it renders when compared to psychokinesis. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You wouldn't refer to Uri Geller's claims of spoon bending as telekinesisSome sources do. For example, a quote from Bruce Sterling about The Matrix mentions "spoon-bending telekinesis". Also, it's an imperfect experiment, but a google search for "telekinetic spoon bending" gives 330 results whereas "psychokinetic spoon bending" gives 131. Colin M ( talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300390001-2.pdf
RESEARCH INTO PARANORMAL ABILITY TO BREAK THROUGH Spatial BARRIERS BY: Song Kongzhi, Li Xianggao and Zhou Liangzhong SUBJECT WITH PARANORMAL ABILITIES: Zhang Baosheng (AEROSPACE MEDICINE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE) ABSTRACT This article uses strict scientific procedures, one of a kind test samples, videotape and high speed photography to demonstrate the objective existence of the paranormal ability of breaking through spatial barriers. rt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 ( talk) 04:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The term "telekinesis" appears to be in significantly higher usage than the term "psychokinesis." Suggest redirecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyonrye ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The third (and last) paragraph in § Etymology is
I see no meaningful difference between these definitions. They are cited from different sources, so as far as we can tell, the sources are not distinguishing the terms. Unless there is some clarification or evidence, the paragraph should be revised to say that these two words are synonymous, using one definition or the other or a new, equivalent one. Thnidu ( talk) 23:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I object to the phrase "No "proven" evidence for psychokinesis". So what? Science doesn't "Prove" anything at the best of times, there's zero mathematically proven evidence for the truth of the predictions of general relativity or modern quantum mechanics, but there is evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics, similarly there are degrees of evidence for psychokinesis out in the literature. Encyclopedia Britannica is honest enough to admit the findings about psychokinesis are inconclusive, which means that the evidence for its existence is about as justified for the evidence against its existence. I recommend rephrasing that part to "Current appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis has returned inconclusive results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.106.154 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, although "No evidence" is not philosophically neutral, because it implicitly conveys that there is evidence against psychokinesis, instead of lack of evidence either way. This is an especially pertinent distinction considering that psychokinesis technically and honestly "could still exist".
Also, The "Evidence" mentioned in "No good evidence" should be qualified "No good published scientific evidence", because "evidence" is not synonymous with scientific evidence, and may mislead some. For example, I have evidence that I had coffee this morning, but technically not published scientific evidence.
alternatively, it could be phrased "Currently published scientific appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis are inconclusive"
The word "Good" should be removed from the above description because it is very vague and subjective. "Inconclusive" is more well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:db65:8a00:3595:646c:854e:9bdd ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
less biased more truthful and implicitly honest versionversion. The one which does not pretend that a model of the world which contains unfalsifiable fantasies has the same scientific standing as model of the world which doesn't. Read WP:FRINGE. Really. Do it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Here is some research which I think should be added
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742350
Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with Random Number Generators--A Meta-Analysis
Bosch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil Psychological Bulletin, v132 n4 p497-523 Jul 2006
Seance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.385.3058&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959 to 2000
Dean Radin & Roger Nelson Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton University
Laboratory experiments examining the possibility of direct mind-matter interactions have been
reported for over a century. Two classes of such experiments reported most frequently include
tossing dice while maintaining the intention for certain die faces to appear, and mental influence of
truly random bits generated by electronic random number generators (RNG). Earlier metaanalyses of publications reporting dice and RNG experiments published up to 1987 provided
strong statistical evidence for mind-matter interaction phenomena. We conducted an update of the
RNG experiment literature to see if the evidence persists.
The updated RNG review covered all known studies from the first published in 1959 to the most
recent published in mid-2000. We found a total of 515 experiments published in 216 articles by
91 different first authors, of which 423 were published through 1987, and 92 published after 1987.
The magnitude of the overall effect size per experiment is small, on average less than the
equivalent of 1% for binary RNGs, but statistically the overall effect is more than 16 standard
errors from chance. The average z score for studies published up to 1987 is z = .73 and for
studies published after 1987 is z = .61. The difference in average z scores is not significant (p =
0.48), indicating that the meta-analytic evidence for mind-matter interaction effects persists.
A conservative estimate of the effect of selective reporting practices (the “filedrawer problem”)
indicates that to reduce the observed statistical outcome to chance, each of the 91 researchers
would have had to conduct but not report 29 additional, nonsignificant experiments. Variations in
methodological quality did not correlate with experimental results (r = 0.03, p = .26), but quality
did significantly imp rove over time (r = 0.50, p = 10-34). We conclude that the RNG experiments
continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence for independently repeatable mind-matter
interaction effects observed under controlled conditions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (
talk •
contribs)
effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous
We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Popem211.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following statements involve logical fallacies, in particular "False Dilemma", "Slippery Slope", and "Circular Argument".
1. According to Planer, "All research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." - False Dilemma, Slippery Slope. The fact that telekinesis may affect measurements that science depends on doesn't mean that telekinesis isn't true. Also, the fact that telekinesis may exist at all does not mean it's common or has a large effect.
2. Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge has written that "psychokinesis, or PK, violates the principle that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did, no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.) - False Dilemma, Circular Argument (mind affecting matter is PK, so to use it as an assumption is circular reasoning)
3. C. E. M. Hansel has written that a general objection against the claim for the existence of psychokinesis is that, if it were a real process, its effects would be expected to manifest in situations in everyday life; but no such effects have been observed. - Slippery Slope - Telekinesis existing at all does not mean it would be commonly observed in everyday life. In fact, there are many phemomena accepted by the scientific community that are not commonly observed.
If the evidence against telekinesis is clear, it shouldn't be necessary to treat logical fallacies as valid arguments.
In general the article sounds one-sided and there isn't a balance of direct quotes by those who argue for telekinesis being real. Also, the research on both sides isn't explained clearly enough for one to evaluate the evidence without trusting the Wikipedia author (who argues against it being true), or others who are cited. When I have more time I plan to go through the details and add a balanced perspective, at least as a separate section. Also, whenever the article refers to positive witnesses for telekinesis it uses words like "alleged" and "claimed" but the article speaks with certainty about frauds being caught and using trickery. Joshuamonkey ( talk) 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In general the article sounds one-sidedThat is because Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.
The result of the move request was: moved. There does not appear to be any objections, and the move appears supported by policy. Awaiting CSD by a sysop to move to the redirect. ( non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ( talk) 23:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – Usage of the term telekinesis overtook psychokinesis as the common name of this topic roughly 20 years ago, as shown by this ngram. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Treetoes023 ( talk) 22:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@ EggRoll97: You closed the move request for this article and stated that the result was to move, but you did not move the article? – Treetoes023 ( talk) 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
"there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis is a real phenomenon" I think this sentence is misleading, This statement should be changed to something along the lines of "There is no convincing evidence of psychokinesis known to the present day scientific community"...To claim with absolute certainty that no convincing evidence exists at all would require omniscience of all the experiences of everyone on earth, thus we should be clear that real evidence may exist outside the current observations made by the scientific community...I myself am a psychokinetic, I can move small objects and have even demonstrated the power to move things in a vacuum...After three years of experimentation with this ability I can say with absolute certainty that I have convincing evidence of psychokinesis, There are many examples of psychokinesis performed on youtube, not just psi wheel demonstrations, but also much heavier objects, like rocks and cups, as well as other documented historical and contemporary accounts of psychokinesis, or psycho kinesis related phenomenon...I don't offer this information as proof, merely as a reminder to be more open minded about psychokinesis. Here are some psychokinesis demonstrations on youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhOElTrSRcQ) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpG4CtWc9t0) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pNJkjri5qo)(<--This is a good one, dice manipulation) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-3c5G0qBZY) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyJxv0QNOUA) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkQvHHFfVI) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 ( talk) 07:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you define evidence? I suspect you have defined evidence as only scientific evidence, this is a mistake, people are capable of knowing unscientifically verifiable(To the scientific community) claims, Like knowledge of your own consciousness... I know that infact you DO speculate!!, You have not tested scientifically, nor in any other regard the KNOWLEDGE state of everybody over the entire course of human history!!!! and apparently you have not even checked the sources of evidence I gave...You probably ignore them as fakes, well the obvious question is, HOW DO YOU KNOW that they're fakes??? Don't make presumptions so easily, you will stymied your own intellectual honesty...Please be more weary of what you truely know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.98.180 ( talk) 06:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by page mover) Sky Warrior 17:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – I’m fairly certain that “telekinesis”, not “psychokinesis”, is the term in common usage. 165.91.12.190 ( talk) 04:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
This Maier, Markus A.; Dechamps, Moritz C. (30 June 2018). "Observer Effects on Quantum Randomness: Testing Micro-Psychokinetic Effects of Smokers on Addiction-Related Stimuli". Journal of Scientific Exploration. 32 (2): 265–297. doi: 10.31275/2018.1250. could be placed somewhere without breaking the balance of neutrality?-- Hienafant ( talk) 11:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quote from the conclusion: "From the analysis of the video tapes and high speed photographs of 25 successful experiments in breaking through spacial barriers by a young subject with paranormal abilities, we have proved the existence of one type of paranormal ability - the ability to pass through spacial barriers"
I am convinced. Not only from this cited study, but also based on own macro-psychokinesis experiments, wherein I have clearly observed psychokinesis on multiple occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 ( talk) 03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The article states that there is no convincing evidence that psychokinesis exists. Who is to decide what is convincing?. Here is a link to an experiment archived the CIA, performed by the aerospace medicine engineering institute, wherein the experimenters claim to have proven a psychokinetic ability. I find it convincing. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000300390001-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.119.199 ( talk) 10:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I just discovered how to reply...I did read it, I was however unsure of the authorship, I initially thought it was the CIA, but later found that it was the aerospace medicine engineering institute of some country. This is not the only published work which shows the existence of psychokinesis and other mind-matter interaction phenomenon. http://deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm A huge amount of evidence exists, and furthermore, many people are convinced on the basis of that evidence.Including many parapsychologists. To claim otherwise is delusional. Thus, the phrasing should be changed from "There is no convincing evidence" to something more neutral and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.21.246 ( talk) 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 08:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – This seems to be the more common name. See how many G-hits it renders when compared to psychokinesis. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
You wouldn't refer to Uri Geller's claims of spoon bending as telekinesisSome sources do. For example, a quote from Bruce Sterling about The Matrix mentions "spoon-bending telekinesis". Also, it's an imperfect experiment, but a google search for "telekinetic spoon bending" gives 330 results whereas "psychokinetic spoon bending" gives 131. Colin M ( talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00792R000300390001-2.pdf
RESEARCH INTO PARANORMAL ABILITY TO BREAK THROUGH Spatial BARRIERS BY: Song Kongzhi, Li Xianggao and Zhou Liangzhong SUBJECT WITH PARANORMAL ABILITIES: Zhang Baosheng (AEROSPACE MEDICINE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE) ABSTRACT This article uses strict scientific procedures, one of a kind test samples, videotape and high speed photography to demonstrate the objective existence of the paranormal ability of breaking through spatial barriers. rt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 ( talk) 04:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
The term "telekinesis" appears to be in significantly higher usage than the term "psychokinesis." Suggest redirecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyonrye ( talk • contribs) 02:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The third (and last) paragraph in § Etymology is
I see no meaningful difference between these definitions. They are cited from different sources, so as far as we can tell, the sources are not distinguishing the terms. Unless there is some clarification or evidence, the paragraph should be revised to say that these two words are synonymous, using one definition or the other or a new, equivalent one. Thnidu ( talk) 23:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I object to the phrase "No "proven" evidence for psychokinesis". So what? Science doesn't "Prove" anything at the best of times, there's zero mathematically proven evidence for the truth of the predictions of general relativity or modern quantum mechanics, but there is evidence for general relativity and quantum mechanics, similarly there are degrees of evidence for psychokinesis out in the literature. Encyclopedia Britannica is honest enough to admit the findings about psychokinesis are inconclusive, which means that the evidence for its existence is about as justified for the evidence against its existence. I recommend rephrasing that part to "Current appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis has returned inconclusive results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.106.154 ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, although "No evidence" is not philosophically neutral, because it implicitly conveys that there is evidence against psychokinesis, instead of lack of evidence either way. This is an especially pertinent distinction considering that psychokinesis technically and honestly "could still exist".
Also, The "Evidence" mentioned in "No good evidence" should be qualified "No good published scientific evidence", because "evidence" is not synonymous with scientific evidence, and may mislead some. For example, I have evidence that I had coffee this morning, but technically not published scientific evidence.
alternatively, it could be phrased "Currently published scientific appraisals of the existence of psychokinesis are inconclusive"
The word "Good" should be removed from the above description because it is very vague and subjective. "Inconclusive" is more well defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:7000:db65:8a00:3595:646c:854e:9bdd ( talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
less biased more truthful and implicitly honest versionversion. The one which does not pretend that a model of the world which contains unfalsifiable fantasies has the same scientific standing as model of the world which doesn't. Read WP:FRINGE. Really. Do it. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Here is some research which I think should be added
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ742350
Examining Psychokinesis: The Interaction of Human Intention with Random Number Generators--A Meta-Analysis
Bosch, Holger; Steinkamp, Fiona; Boller, Emil Psychological Bulletin, v132 n4 p497-523 Jul 2006
Seance-room and other large-scale psychokinetic phenomena have fascinated humankind for decades. Experimental research has reduced these phenomena to attempts to influence (a) the fall of dice and, later, (b) the output of random number generators (RNGs). The meta-analysis combined 380 studies that assessed whether RNG output correlated with human intention and found a significant but very small overall effect size. The study effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous. A Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the small effect size, the relation between sample size and effect size, and the extreme effect size heterogeneity found could in principle be a result of publication bias.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.385.3058&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959 to 2000
Dean Radin & Roger Nelson Boundary Institute, Los Altos, California Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton University
Laboratory experiments examining the possibility of direct mind-matter interactions have been
reported for over a century. Two classes of such experiments reported most frequently include
tossing dice while maintaining the intention for certain die faces to appear, and mental influence of
truly random bits generated by electronic random number generators (RNG). Earlier metaanalyses of publications reporting dice and RNG experiments published up to 1987 provided
strong statistical evidence for mind-matter interaction phenomena. We conducted an update of the
RNG experiment literature to see if the evidence persists.
The updated RNG review covered all known studies from the first published in 1959 to the most
recent published in mid-2000. We found a total of 515 experiments published in 216 articles by
91 different first authors, of which 423 were published through 1987, and 92 published after 1987.
The magnitude of the overall effect size per experiment is small, on average less than the
equivalent of 1% for binary RNGs, but statistically the overall effect is more than 16 standard
errors from chance. The average z score for studies published up to 1987 is z = .73 and for
studies published after 1987 is z = .61. The difference in average z scores is not significant (p =
0.48), indicating that the meta-analytic evidence for mind-matter interaction effects persists.
A conservative estimate of the effect of selective reporting practices (the “filedrawer problem”)
indicates that to reduce the observed statistical outcome to chance, each of the 91 researchers
would have had to conduct but not report 29 additional, nonsignificant experiments. Variations in
methodological quality did not correlate with experimental results (r = 0.03, p = .26), but quality
did significantly imp rove over time (r = 0.50, p = 10-34). We conclude that the RNG experiments
continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence for independently repeatable mind-matter
interaction effects observed under controlled conditions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2401:7000:DB65:8A00:3595:646C:854E:9BDD (
talk •
contribs)
effect sizes were strongly and inversely related to sample size and were extremely heterogeneous
We conclude that the RNG experiments continue to provide persuasive statistical evidence
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Popem211.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following statements involve logical fallacies, in particular "False Dilemma", "Slippery Slope", and "Circular Argument".
1. According to Planer, "All research in medicine and other sciences would become illusionary, if the existence of PK had to be taken seriously; for no experiment could be relied upon to furnish objective results, since all measurements would become falsified to a greater or lesser degree, according to his PK ability, by the experimenter's wishes." - False Dilemma, Slippery Slope. The fact that telekinesis may affect measurements that science depends on doesn't mean that telekinesis isn't true. Also, the fact that telekinesis may exist at all does not mean it's common or has a large effect.
2. Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge has written that "psychokinesis, or PK, violates the principle that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did, no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.) - False Dilemma, Circular Argument (mind affecting matter is PK, so to use it as an assumption is circular reasoning)
3. C. E. M. Hansel has written that a general objection against the claim for the existence of psychokinesis is that, if it were a real process, its effects would be expected to manifest in situations in everyday life; but no such effects have been observed. - Slippery Slope - Telekinesis existing at all does not mean it would be commonly observed in everyday life. In fact, there are many phemomena accepted by the scientific community that are not commonly observed.
If the evidence against telekinesis is clear, it shouldn't be necessary to treat logical fallacies as valid arguments.
In general the article sounds one-sided and there isn't a balance of direct quotes by those who argue for telekinesis being real. Also, the research on both sides isn't explained clearly enough for one to evaluate the evidence without trusting the Wikipedia author (who argues against it being true), or others who are cited. When I have more time I plan to go through the details and add a balanced perspective, at least as a separate section. Also, whenever the article refers to positive witnesses for telekinesis it uses words like "alleged" and "claimed" but the article speaks with certainty about frauds being caught and using trickery. Joshuamonkey ( talk) 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
In general the article sounds one-sidedThat is because Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. See WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.
The result of the move request was: moved. There does not appear to be any objections, and the move appears supported by policy. Awaiting CSD by a sysop to move to the redirect. ( non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ( talk) 23:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Psychokinesis → Telekinesis – Usage of the term telekinesis overtook psychokinesis as the common name of this topic roughly 20 years ago, as shown by this ngram. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Treetoes023 ( talk) 22:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@ EggRoll97: You closed the move request for this article and stated that the result was to move, but you did not move the article? – Treetoes023 ( talk) 03:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)